Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Academic cheating with generative AI: Exploring a moral extension of the theory of planned behavior
7
Zitationen
4
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
As generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools become increasingly integrated into educational environments, concerns have emerged about their potential to facilitate academic dishonesty. Drawing on the modified theory of planned behavior, this study aimed to understand undergraduate students’ academic cheating behaviors using GenAI. The study conducted a mixed-method approach, utilizing focus groups and polls to gather insights from 25 undergraduate students enrolled in a course that incorporated GenAI into its pedagogical design in the United States. The results revealed that the integration of GenAI into higher education is perceived as inevitable. While students clearly recognized overt cheating, opinions varied regarding subtle forms of dishonesty and the effectiveness of formal deterrents. Peer influence and personal ethics were found to strongly shape cheating behaviors, with class policies enforced by instructors exerting a greater influence on student cheating behavior with GenAI than broader institutional policies. These insights can assist educators and policymakers in managing the challenges and opportunities presented by the integration of GenAI technologies into education. • Students want to use GenAI ethically, but lack clear policy • Students look to professors to set the rules for GenAI use, not the institution • Integrating GenAI in higher education is inevitable • Peer influence is greater than the influence of professors and school policies
Ähnliche Arbeiten
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications
2022 · 2.691 Zit.
Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach
1998 · 2.518 Zit.
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
2012 · 2.320 Zit.
Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysis
2006 · 2.215 Zit.
How Does ChatGPT Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment
2023 · 1.978 Zit.